I would suggest any endeavour could be likened to walking through a minefield. A fair definition of 'leader' then becomes 'one who is not afraid of making mistakes'.
Anyone who is afraid of making mistakes, or having people jeer at them, should go second. That way, when the leader inevitably steps on a mine they can... swap with the person behind them.
Darwin was I think, undeniably and indisputably the best 'leader' of the three. He spent much more time analysing his minefield, and made more careful -meticulous- observations.
He was able to penetrate his minefield to an admirable degree with the knowledge available to him.
Marx and Freud probably didn't penetrate their respective minefields to any great degree before they blew up, but they still started the path, and for that they deserve some credit.
In their defense, there was less knowledge available to them about their particular fields (as Mr Lawson partially acknowledges), and observation was arguably trickier.
It could be argued the comparison is unfair, inasmuch as Darwin was working in part with knowledge left to him by others; Lyall, Malthus and others did make strong contributions to Darwin's 'map', and Wallace contributed strong corroborative evidence.
Of course, the safest course is to not enter a minefield at all; just stand on the edge and throw pooh.

and then there's mother Theresa who did more good for humanity than all these 3 rogues put together.

Pull your head in Runner. This thread is not about Darwin vs genesis.

As far as I know posters here do not lurk about creationist blogs throwing spanners about. If you really want to test your ideas then grow some balls and visit http://richarddawkins.net/forum/

Newton ignoring contradictions in this theory? Eh? There was never anything like that for Newton's Principia.. the problems with Newtonian mechanics did not become apparent until the late 19th century and then scientists did not quite what to do about it.. the correspondent may be refering to Newton's work in alchemy which is seldom discussed. It is also true that he was a difficult, unpleasant man who little time for scientific discussion.

The main point of the article was that Marx and Freud did nothing that could be considered research, but still put forward elaborate theories based on little more than their prejudicies.. as noted, both men kicked off new ways of doing things but that must be counter-blanaced by the fact that it took decades, almost a century or more to get rid of the nonsense that that their theories inspired.. Darwin's work has withstood the test of time, because he bothered with evidence and reasoning..

Oh come on Bennie

This might not be about Genesis/ evolution but it is about a science fiction writer who many take seriously because it allows them to live like animals. I think it was a French Professor who said that evolution was a fairytale for adults. Going on the evidence produced by Darwinist his statement has proven to be true.

I have to admit when someone mentioned Mine fields and throwing Poo; just about summed it up quite well;
Karl Marx and The Freudian slip were Mind Field and Paradigm Shift operators, and in a true Darwinian supposition of evolution with a couple addendums - ; You ought never speak ill of the poo, it could be someone’s ancestral parent.

But the one question I have to ask as I have done always; and that is; how many Darwinian’s have read and understood Charles Darwin’s Publications? There are Twenty One of them in ebook.
My confident prediction of the answer is ; None ; For if that is the case , how do people reach their opinions on the subject if not by total indoctrination ; hear say and puerile sycophantic idiotry that has become Post Modernism ;- ,

The second part of the fact that negates the whole entire episode ; Charles Darwin’s own Biography . Written By himself, He clearly states his objective and motivation – and his reasoning why none of his theory could ever be held up to scientific scrutiny – because it was never a scientific endeavour